As part of the colonies' effort to win their independence from England they boycotted imports from England. As part of the India's effort to win their independence from England they boycotted products imported from England. Purchasing products from England was a primary source of the lack of work resulting in poverty for citizens of India. Today the United States has the same problems India experienced. Purchasing products made in other countries results in the lack of employment resulting in poverty for the citizens of the United States. To free ourselves we must boycott products imported from other countries. We must make due with what we can produce ourselves. For a while the cost will be higher but in the not too distant future those costs will reduce resulting in increased employment within the United States. For a while our life style may be lowered but in the not too distant future it will return and increase.
It only takes the will to succeed.
Freedom of individuals leads to destruction. Here is why: Picture a pasture---a commons---on which all herdsmen are free to graze their herds. Such an arrangement works reasonably satisfactorily for centuries because tribal wars, poaching, and disease keep the numbers of both man and beast well below the carrying capacity of the land. But during an era of peace and prosperity the herds multiply, the inherent logic of the commons generates tragedy. Each herdsman acting rationally in his own self-interest will add to his herd. He alone will profit from an additional animal, whereas the environmental impact will be shared by all. What's one more cow? Overgrazed, grass eventually gives way to dust. Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit. In a world that is limited, freedom in a commons brings ruin too all.
There are resources we share with each other and with the world, air and water being examples and so the tragedy of the commons still obtains. It explains the depletion of fisheries and aquifers. It explains the pollution of skies and seas. Technology may delay the tragedy---by increasing crop yields or fuel efficiency---but so long as the human population continues to grow it cannot in the long run avert it. Which do we want more environmental health or economic growth. Long term we cannot have both. In a world that is limited, freedom in a commons brings ruin too all.
GW voted for requiring a three-fourths majority in Congress to override a presidential veto. The convention was not as concerned so it approved a two-thirds majority to forestall executive powers. You may rue that day.
US presidents have issued executive orders since 1789, GW being president. Although there is no Constitutional provision or statute that explicitly permits executive orders, there is a vague grant of "executive power" given in Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution, and furthered by the declaration "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" made in Article II, Section 3, Clause 5. Most Executive Orders use these Constitutional reasonings as the authorization allowing for their issuance to be justified as part of the President's sworn duties, the intent being to help direct officers of the US Executive carry out their delegated duties as well as the normal operations of the federal government: the consequence of failing to comply possibly being the removal from office.
If Congress does not like what the executive branch is doing, it has two main options. It may rewrite or amend a previous law, or spell it out in greater detail how the Executive Branch must act. The President has the right to veto the bill if he disagrees with it, so, in practice; a two-thirds majority is often required to override an Executive Order.
In addition to congressional recourse, Executive Orders can be challenged in court, usually on the grounds that the Order deviates from "congressional intent" or exceeds the President's constitutional powers.
As I have often said the president is not the problem, Congress is the problem. The president can do nothing with which two thirds of congress and/or court does not agree.
Congress: Bingo with billions. --- Red Skelton
Worldwide, every four days human population increases by 1 million. The world cannot absorb that increase. The intelligent solution would require limiting every human female capable of bearing children to one.
Why does anyone want to be in government, other than to increase their personal wealth? To do what is required takes character, ethics, morality, integrity and courage which in the political world are rare.
We love growth. It frames the political and economic strategy of every government in the world, democratic or not. It frames the strategy of every company and even determines the longevity of board directors, CEOs and corporate executives. It is, for most people, one of the key measurements of progress through life. We consider our success over time in the context of whether we see growth in our assets, income and financial security along with material manifestations as in our homes, cars, and lifestyles.
The end of growth is not going to be a smooth process. As population grows, we need more jobs, and that requires growth. That will continue to be more difficult because technological efficiency and productivity improvements drive down the number of people needed to create the goods we produce. If the economy doesn't grow fast enough to overcome these efficiency improvements and deal with population growth, unemployment goes up, spending goes down, fewer products are produced, and fewer jobs are created.
Growth has effectively ended.
When five hundred million people lose their livelihoods and one billion people their protein because fisheries collapse growth for them will be a fading dream. If we have to eliminate the fossil-fuel industry to cut CO2 emissions, we will lose $3 trillion of economic activity. If we don't eliminate them we will face runaway climate change with the potential loss of the insurance industry, the collapse of food supply, and political crises and instability over water and refugees. If we get growth back we will face peak oil and food shortages with prices moving to new highs that stop growth again.
Do you, as I do, wonder why we are just hearing about Agenda 21 and how Obama is turning the United States over to the United Nations? I suspect the Tea-Party.
The term Sustainable Development was first introduced to the world in the 1987 (25 years ago) and was first offered as official UN policy in 1992 (20 years ago) at the Earth Summit.
More than 178 nations adopted Agenda 21 as official policy at the Earth Summit. President George H.W. Bush signed the document for the United States. In signing, each nation pledge to adopt the goals of Agenda 21. In 1995 (17 years ago), President Bill Clinton, in compliance with Agenda 21, signed Executive Order #12858 to create the President's Council on Sustainable Development in order to "harmonize" US environmental policy with UN directives as outlined in Agenda 21. Clinton didn't even go through congress but no complaints? The Executive Order directed all agencies of the Federal Government to work with state and local community governments in a joint effort "reinvent" government using the guidelines outlined in Agenda 21. No reporting by the media and no complaining by Republicans? As a result, Sustainable Development is now emerging as government policy in every town, county and state in the nation. Clinton is more responsible than Obama.
Warnings concerning the fact that the path the world is on is not sustainable have been ignored since the 1950s. Unsustainable and across borders means a higher authority has to be involved to work out compromises. Our way of life is not sustainable. We cannot blame it on Obama. He did not cause the mess. Fair chance republicans and their unfettered support of corporations allowed those corporations to pollute and destroy the environment leaving the taxpayers to clean up their mess. Time to stop pointing fingers and work together and that will require compromises and that is something the Tea-Party cannot do. That makes them part of the problem.
People do not like being told what they are doing will lead to mutual destruction. Like the church. What the church is doing is not working, it is unsustainable. Things have to change. Church people don't like that. Maybe the church needs a Tea-Party movement.
You have mentioned having concerns with what is referred to as United Nations Agenda 21. I understand the Tea-Party also has problems with it. From what I have read I do not see reason to be concerned. I understand it makes points that people do not like but not liking them does not make them untrue. It appears more a statement of common values than an "agenda" at least in my use of the word and suggests some ideas for public policy to support those values. The wording has to be innocuous if you expect countries as diverse as the United States, Russia, Bolivia, Saudi Arabia, Ghana, Laos, and let's not forget Cuba and Venezuela to get on board. No country likes it although enemies of the United States may.
The United States, will soon find ourselves exposed to a world we have never before experienced.
Recently I read that due to the drought and projected worldwide food shortages the United Nations has asked the United States to stop production of fuels based on corn. Imagine the United Nations telling the United States what to do. When you look at the carbon footprint of what it takes to produce ethanol it is not that different than its oil counterpart but friends of government are having a great pay day so stopping is out of the question. In the not so far future we will have to decide if we want water, food or fuel. We might be able to have two but not three.
Within the United States water is becoming scarce. Rivers are being siphoned off for irrigation i.e. water for Los Angeles or farms and ranches in states neighboring California? The Colorado River does not reach Mexico in the same volume it once did. Atlanta is under a perpetual water rationing. Remember when Georgia wanted to annex a part of Tennessee allegedly for the water it contained? If you want a sample of what we can expect from the world watch the states as we begin to fight for water. Idaho owns the top 34 feet of a water source in Wyoming. If that source drops below 34 feet is will be interesting. I can think of several things local militias could do to destroy water sources of its neighboring hindrances.
From what I have read:
The population of the world has exceeded its ability to provide food, water, shelter for its people;
There are a fair number of failing states, meaning countries that cannot provide for their citizens some of which will soon be on world welfare or all of its citizens die or they can attack their neighbors. You choose;
Water tables are falling and farmers are losing water to cities. The Nile River will not flood as it has for centuries resulting in loss of food production in Egypt. Wait till Egypt goes after Ethiopia to stop them from taking water from the Nile;
Temperatures are rising; glaciers are shrinking; water levels are rising either cyclical or manmade it makes no difference.
Oil reserves are shrinking and in some places will run out this century; might be time to give Texas back to Mexico. While coal is abundant stabilizing climate will require phasing out its use. Kentucky and West Virginia will like that one;
Some countries have run out of usable farm land and are obtaining land in other countries to grow food for themselves. I believe the United States already bars the export of grain from such arrangements.
The berated point is problems of other countries will soon be our problems. On April 18, 2001, Arizona to Canada was blanketed with dust from a huge dust storm originating in China and Mongolia on April 5. 1,200 miles across when it left China the storm carried millions of tons of topsoil that will take centuries to replace. A year later on April 12, 2002, South Korea was covered by a huge dust storm from China that had the people in Seoul gasping for breath, airline flights were cancelled, and clinics were overrun with people with breathing problems and retail sales dropped. Either one of those could cause nations to go to war.
I do not trust the UN to save the world or the United States I do not trust the Tea-Party nor do I trust our government that cannot pass a budget.
Any suggestions? Suggestions have to be workable and acceptable to the majority of the citizens of the United States and their representatives and senators. I have none but make me dictator and stand back I will take care of it.
If you know any Tea-Party folks I would be interested in evaluating their suggestions.
If you are one of the billion or so people at the top of the global economic then how good is this? We get a good meal whenever we want it. We have housing that prevents us from being exposed to the elements. We rarely experience violence in our day-to-day lives and if we do we get a response that pretty much reduces the threat to a manageable level. We generally get basic health care needs met, with even poor-quality care light-years ahead of what the average person received a few generations ago.
This quality of life is no longer just for those in Western countries, as it largely was a few decades ago. Today, millions of people in China, India, South America and other developing countries live this relatively luxurious life.
We, the lucky billion, spend most of our lives seeking ever greater and subtler refinements in what we perceive to be our quality of life: nicer clothes, better music, more comfortable furniture, more interesting holidays, more convenient technology, more unusual variations of food, a more secure retirement. It doesn't get much better than this.
Our grandparents would see us living like kings with every convenience dealt with, every basic human need met, and our arguments on what needs to improve going to ever-greater refinements to all of this. They would hear us complain about interest rates, not being able to afford a larger house or a renovation, and having a degree of uncertainty that we will be able to live this lifestyle when we stopped working. As near as one or two generations ago, no one stopped working unless they were dead, let alone spent their latter years in physical comfort with decent health care.
Left behind are many more billions, many of whom live in grinding, soul-destroying poverty. While we strive for larger televisions, DVD screens in our cars, and the perfectly grilled tender steak, they die for a glass of clean water or a bowl of rice.
Our needs are met. We have the capacity not just to make our lives comfortable, but to explore space, to develop extraordinary scientific knowledge, to cure diseases, to invent amazing technologies that will help us and future generations live even better lives. We can connect to one another instantaneously and globally to share our hopes, our dreams and what we have for breakfast.
The path we are on is completely unsustainable. We have too many people, not enough clean water; we cannot grow enough food nor build the required shelter. On top of that we have environmental issues that exacerbate the lack of those necessities and the prevent the continuance of those necessities.
We can be against the United Nations Agenda 21 but what alternative does the world have than to cooperate. Those that have will either lose everything or they will give up some, maybe up to half of what they have.
When resources are limited freedom leads to destruction.
I hope the Tea-Party has practical workable alternatives. When they cannot work with Republicans or Democrats getting China, the United States, Somalia, Argentina, and Cambodia to work together will not be easy if possible at all. The Tea-Party appears to think they know what needs to be done but they have no clue as to how to go about it.
We need alternatives to UN Agenda 21 but what are they?
In the first stage of industrialism animals were used as machines as also were children. In the latter stages of industrialism poor children who escaped the factory took to the street where they formed "child societies" gangs of urchins who like feral cats invented a social order all their own. Partly in fear of child societies middle class parents of the Gilded Age began treating their children like pets. Nurseries and playrooms became common and toy chests began to overflow.
In the early 1900s came the crib, which unlike the cradle, isolated infants in rooms of their own. Playthings served as antidotes for loneliness; substitutes for the free play of the "child society." Lonely little middle-class girls were encouraged to keep company of dolls, little boys had stuffed animals. By 1906 zoos were selling souvenirs and thanks to Teddy Roosevelt, the teddy bear fad hit.
Stuffed animals and dolls were appealing to parents who were trying to facilitate new sleeping arrangements for babies to guard against unduly fervent emotional attachments to mothers. The decline in paid help for young children also opened the door to the use of toys as surrogate entertainment.
Freedom of individuals leads to destruction. Here is why: Picture a pasture---a commons---on which all herdsmen are free to graze their herds. Such an arrangement works reasonably satisfactorily for centuries because tribal wars, poaching, and disease keep the numbers of both man and beast well below the carrying capacity of the land. But during an era of peace and prosperity the herds multiply, the inherent logic of the commons generates tragedy. Each herdsman acting rationally in his own self-interest will add to his herd. He alone will profit from an additional animal, whereas the environmental impact will be shared by all. What's one more cow? Overgrazed, grass eventually gives way to dust. Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit. In a world that is limited, freedom in a commons brings ruin too all.
There are resources we share with each other and with the world, air and water being examples and so the tragedy of the commons still obtains. It explains the depletion of fisheries and aquifers. It explains the pollution of skies and seas. Technology may delay the tragedy---by increasing crop yields or fuel efficiency---but so long as the human population continues to grow it cannot in the long run avert it. Which do we want more environmental health or economic growth. Long term we cannot have both. In a world that is limited, freedom in a commons brings ruin too all.
You wrote we have accepted ... casual efforts at … service, …."
As a body our primary group activity is assembling to listen. Groups need to be involved in group activities which offer encouragement for individuals to engage in individual activities.
You talk about preaching when you were a young teenager. You were given opportunities to grow. We should provide opportunities for the members to grow.
Several years ago officers at the New York City Department found an anonymous note posted on the bulletin board, "We're not report takers we're the police." At the time the focus was on arrests made, reports taken, cases closes, budgets met but were changed to an output of double-digit annual declines in felony crime rates.
What is our focus?
